More than the latest technology. Solutions for all your patients' needs.

Straumann implants are available in the material and surface combinations of Roxolid® SLActive®, Roxolid® SLA® and Titanium SLA®.


a simply stronger implant material.

Roxolid is the first Titanium-Zirconium (TiZr) alloy material designed specifically for dental implants. It is stronger than pure titanium1 and has excellent osseointegration properties.2,3,4 This combination of properties is unique in the market – there is no other metallic alloy which unifies high mechanical strength and osteoconductivity.

With outstanding mechanical properties, Roxolid Implants may allow you to use smaller-diameter implants with the same clinical performance as regular-diameter titanium implants.5 Smaller implants have the potential to preserve peri-implant structures and avoid invasive bone grafting procedures.

  • Higher tensile strength1
  • Improved osseointegration over Straumann’s Titanium SLActive® implants2
  • The SLActive surface featured on the Roxolid implant is scientifically supported in 14 preclinical and 8 clinical studies6

Could a bone augmentation procedure be avoided by using Roxolid Ø 3.3 mm Implants?

54 % of participants in a clinical non-interventional study stated that a bone augmentation procedure could be avoided due to the use of Roxolid Ø 3.3 mm Implants.7

Increase patient acceptance by providing less invasive solutions

With Straumann Roxolid Implants you have the ability to offer less invasive solutions8 to your patients that deliver faster treatment at a lower cost. These advantages have the potential to make dental implant treatments appealing to more patients.


a simply better implant surface.

Promoting faster osseointegration and providing higher predictability in stability-critical treatment protocols, the hydrophilic SLActive surface has become an advantage provided by the Straumann® Dental Implant System.

  • Faster osseointegration to enhance confidence in all treatments
  • Reduced healing time from 6 to 8 weeks to 3 to 4 weeks*
  • Increased predictability in stability critical treatment protocols*

Increased predictability

Most implant failures occur in the critical early period between weeks 2 and 4.9 A clinical study showed that SLActive Implants promote significantly greater osseointegration at 28 days than SLA® Implants.10 SLActive is designed to deliver high stability and has shown to be predictable in early treatment, giving you confidence in the treatment outcome.

Clinical studyshowed that SLActive Implants promote significantly greater (p=0.033) osseointegration at 28 days* than SLA Implants.10

Promotes bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects

Critical situations such as dehiscence defects are always a challenge and put success at risk. With SLActive, new bone volume and BIC are significantly higher (p<0.001) than SLA.11


Well-documented rough surface

Our SLA® surface was commercially launched in 1998 and is one of the most documented rough surfaces in implantology. The SLA® surface is produced using a large-grit sandblasting technique that generates a macro-roughness on the titanium surface. This is followed by acid-etching that superposes a micro-roughness. The resulting topography offers an ideal structure for cell attachment.


Straumann SLA surface is one of the most documented surfaces in dental implantology.
In these long-term studies, survival rates reached between 95% to 99%12,14,15 and even in patients with moderate or severe periodontal diseases an implant survival rate of 97% was reported.9 SLA surface shows low prevalence of peri-implantitis.14

  • More than 100 clinical and preclinical SLA studies published in last 20 years
  • 5 peer-reviewed publications with 10 years of follow-up data on Straumann implants and prosthetics12-16

*Compared to SLA.


1 Norm ASTM F67 (states min. tensile strength of annealed titanium); data on file for Straumann cold-worked titanium and Roxolid implants.

2 Gottlow J, Dard M, Kjellson F, Obrecht M, Sennerby L. Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig. Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2012; 14: 538–545

3 Wen B, Zhu F, Li Z, Zhang P, Lin X, Dard M. The osseointegration behavior of titanium-zirconium implants in ovariectomized rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jul;25(7):819-25. Epub 2013 Feb 21.

4 Barter S, Stone P, Brägger U. A pilot study to evaluate the success and survival rate of titanium-zirconium implants in partially edentulous patients: results after 24 months of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jul;23(7):873-81. Epub 2011 Jun 24.

5 Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Mokti M, Hämmerle CH, Weber HP, Jung RE. Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2013 Nov;40(11):1052–61. Epub 2013 Sep 8.

6 Straumann SLActive Scientific Summaries, USLIT196.

7 Al-Nawas B, Domagala P, Fragola G, Freiberger P, Ortiz-Vigón A, Rousseau P, Tondela J. A prospective non-interventional study to evaluate survival and success of reduced diameter implants made from titanium-zirconium alloy. J Oral Implantol. 2014 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print]

8 If a Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedure can be avoided.

9 Raghavendra S, Wood MC, Taylor TD. Early wound healing around endosseous implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 May–Jun;20(3):425–31.

10 Lang NP, Salvi GE, Huynh-Ba G, Ivanovski S, Donos N, Bosshardt DD. Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Apr;22(4):349-56.

11 Schwarz F, Herten M, Sager M, Wieland M, Dard M, Becker J. Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: a pilot study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Jan;34(1):78-86. Epub 2006 Nov 24.

12 Fischer K., Stenberg T. Prospective 10-year Cohort Study Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on Implant-Supported Full-Arch Maxillary Prostheses. Part 1: Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implants and Mucosal Tissue.’ Clin Implant Dent Relat Research. 2012 Dec;14(6):808-15.

13 Fischer K, Stenberg T. ‘Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT) on implant-supported full-arch maxilary prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic outcomes and maintenance.’ Clin Implant Dent Relat Research.2013 Aug;15(4):498-508.

14 Buser D. et al. ‘10-year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a sandblasted and Acid Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients’ Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Dec;14(6):839-51.

15 Roccuzzo M. et al ‘Long-term results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients: 10-year data around sandblasted and acidetched (SLA) surface.’ Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jul 19. [Epub ahead of print].

16 Wittneben JG et al. ‘Complication and Failure Rates with Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Single Crowns: A 10-Year Retrospective Study.’ Clin Implant DentRelat Res. 2013; Apr 2. [Epub ahead of print].

For more information please contact your Straumann Territory Manager or call customer service at 800/448 8168.